sleeper_shot

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (PNG as a data URL), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, viewport sizing, whether the result is base64-inline, or any side effects, which is thin for a no-annotation definition.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single fragment with no waste, but also no substance — the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the artifact name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool in a 50-sibling browser-automation set with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is markedly incomplete: it omits tab semantics, capture scope versus sibling capture tools, and any indication of how the data URL should be handled.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only 50% schema description coverage: the 'profile' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'tab' has no description anywhere. The tool description adds nothing about either parameter, so the tab selector and its relationship to sleeper_tabs is undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the action and artifact clearly enough: 'Viewport PNG screenshot (data URL)'. However, it gives no differentiation from close siblings like sleeper_screenshot and sleeper_snapshot, so an agent cannot tell which capture tool to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, and no mention of the alternatives (sleeper_screenshot, sleeper_snapshot) that appear in the sibling list. The viewport-vs-full-page distinction that would drive selection is left entirely implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.